Civil Service Pensions
Debate between Meg Hillier and Nick Thomas-Symonds(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To take the hon. Lady’s final point first, yes, bereavement cases are being prioritised. Capita’s current working assumption is that the remaining backlog of over 6,700 quotations for past retirement dates and the 4,100 actionable bereavement cases will be systemically cleared through the rest of July and August, and I hope this House will hold it to that timetable.
More broadly, the hon. Lady is absolutely right about learning the lessons from this situation and robustly holding Capita to account. That is why, as the House will be aware, I took the decision to end, for example, its contract for the Royal Mail pension scheme. The House can be assured that I will not hesitate to take robust action.
On the hon. Lady’s other point, which I think is a central one, I am always very conscious—contrary to what the shadow Minister says—of the operational position week to week in order to ensure that I am still driving the improvement of this pension scheme to the level it should be at.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a real mess, and I am pleased the Minister has acknowledged that, but there are a few practical things that could be delivered. There is no MP hotline, and there is a long and complicated process for MPs and their staff to go through the other hotline. Could that perhaps be resolved, because it would make things a lot quicker? When emails are sent, the same AI-generated generic responses are sent back repeatedly, which means that no progress is made. The to-ing and fro-ing is just wasting time. There could be clearer guidance about what MPs can pass on to our constituents who have challenges. Finally, postal delays are a real issue in my constituency and others, particularly in London—I see that Members from around the country are nodding—so could there be more use of email to, at the very least, get out the statement, even if there is eventually paperwork to be signed? Most organisations now manage to do paperwork via email, so could Capita not sort that out?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am more than happy to take on board what my hon. Friend has said about streamlining MPs’ interaction with the service. The Parliamentary Secretary has passed on many of these points directly to Capita, and indeed has raised its behaviour directly with the Speaker’s Office. More broadly, I am more than willing to look at what my hon. Friend has said.
Payment Scheme
Debate between Meg Hillier and Nick Thomas-Symonds(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As the right hon. Gentleman can imagine, I have interacted with the Haemophilia Society and many other charities over the past two years. It is important to mention that the scheme does include carers; I am perfectly willing to look at what the Haemophilia Society is saying about the precise package for carers, but the fundamental point is that carers should be recognised, and they are within the scheme.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I was interested in the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He said that, notwithstanding the regulations and all the work to set out the rules and scope of the compensation scheme, there is an opportunity for people who are affected or infected to go all the way to the chief executive or chair of IBCA—to all the bodies involved or even the Minister, if necessary. Could the Minister set out in detail the parameters of that? That could ride roughshod over a carefully developed scheme, even if not everything is perfect. How far could it go? There might be a risk that many people feel that they have not been fairly treated and then take it all the way up to the Minister, which would put this or a future Minister in an invidious position.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. When it came to this particular recommendation from Sir Brian Langstaff, I was concerned about two things. First, I wanted to ensure that there was a proper structure for the infected blood community to be able to put forward their views. I did not want that to become a glorified post box—I did not want it to just be a grand correspondence scheme, where letters came in and replies were sent back. What I wanted was a proper mechanism for sifting, so that complaints can go to the right place based on the particular nature of each one, so that the appropriate person can look at each complaint and see whether it can be dealt with.
To the broader point that my hon. Friend is alluding to, we also had to have stability in the policy in order to be able now to continue to drive forward compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, who does a fantastic job chairing the all-party parliamentary group, is quite rightly raising concerns with me. I want a proper mechanism for dealing with those concerns. That is why I have pushed so hard to make sure that we had this debate before the summer, because we must also ensure that we are doing what we can collectively to push forward the speed of payments as quickly as possible.
I should say that I have always been very grateful to the opposition parties, who have always facilitated that when I have brought regulations before the House. This is, I think, the fourth time I have done so.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It was a privilege to work with my hon. Friend in Government. She was excellent to work with on this matter, and I am very grateful for all her contributions. Of course, I have been dealing with a number of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations in the Cabinet Office, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the Department of Health also had responsibility for a number of them, and I know that she drove those forward very well.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about working with the devolved Administrations. Again, I have been lucky over the past two years to have worked very constructively with the devolved Administrations on this matter. This is a pre-devolution scandal, but we are taking measures to seek justice now, in the post-devolution age. To reflect that, it has been really important to work with Governments across the United Kingdom—all of whom have been constructive in the time that I have been working on this.
I will turn now to the regulations. Regulation 3 introduces a new level of award as recommended by the inquiry, so that the people who suffered from the side effects of interferon treatment will receive an additional injury award, as well as further financial loss and care compensation, to reflect the impact on their lives. Following the consultation, the regulations also ensure that people who received more than one round of interferon will be properly compensated for each of those rounds of treatment.
Regulation 4 removes the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation for people who choose to receive support scheme payments for life. Following the consultation, the regulations ensure that people will receive past financial loss compensation based on whichever of the two ways of calculating the award is most financially beneficial to them. I chose to do that to recognise that selecting only one way of calculating the award would mean that some people’s expected awards would reduce in size, which was not the intention. By running both calculations and giving each person whichever is the highest amount in their personal circumstances, we will ensure that everyone gets fair compensation through this award.
Regulation 5 makes provision for a 50% uplift to the core autonomy award for those infected under the age of 18, calculated based on the highest severity of infection they experienced during childhood.
Regulation 6 amends the eligibility criteria for the unethical research award, so that everyone treated for a bleeding disorder before 1986 will receive an unethical research award. The regulations also introduce a new unethical research award for children, which means that people who were treated for a bleeding disorder in childhood will receive an uplifted award.
The regulations also increase the amount of compensation that all eligible people receive for this award. It is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal; I do not think that any amount of money could ever truly make up for that heinous experimentation, particularly where it took place on children. We have listened to the feedback received through the consultation, and, as a result, people who attended Treloar’s will receive £60,000 rather than the £25,000 proposed in the consultation. Other children will receive £45,000. Those treated in adulthood will receive £30,000, tripling the amount that they currently receive.
Regulation 7 ensures that everyone who was eligible for the special category mechanism or an equivalent payment through the infected blood support schemes—IBSS, as they are known—receives additional financial loss and care compensation. Following the consultation, the regulations ensure that everyone in this position has the award backdated to 2017, when the SCM award was first introduced, regardless of when they were assessed. Living people who were not assessed as eligible for SCM can also now apply for it through IBCA, including those who were previously unsuccessful in their application to the infected blood support schemes.
Regulations 8 and 9 make changes to the exceptional loss award under the supplementary route. These regulations introduce a compensation uplift of £60,000 for people who had entered or had an offer to enter a career that generally would have paid 10% more than the gross national median average earnings, as determined in 2024, at any point prior to retirement age, but were unable to progress in that career due to their infection. That award is on top of their core route financial loss award.
We also heard in the consultation that some people are concerned that they will not be able to access the exceptional loss award if they do not have historical payslips. The Government will work with IBCA to ensure that all relevant evidence can be used to help someone to show that they are eligible for the exceptional loss award, so that that is not a barrier. I have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that I want the scheme to be as sympathetic and unburdensome to applicants as possible.
On the occasions that I have visited IBCA, I have been very impressed by the culture being imbued there of taking a can-do approach when people are ringing and trying to find appropriate historical documents. That is particularly important for two reasons. First, the events often happened long ago. Secondly, we know from Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that there is evidence of deliberate document destruction. For both those reasons, there needs to be a sympathetic approach.
Dame Meg Hillier
There have been occasions, in various roles I have had in this place, when we have looked at documents. The Government have a document destruction plan. At the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, a year after death one’s records will be destroyed; that has been an issue when there have been problems with pensions.
Although the Minister is focused today on the regulations, what he has said is very interesting in the context of document retention and other schemes that require proof in order to pay out. With immigration, for instance, someone might need to prove that they had been in the country, and they might need to access doctors or school records. I wonder whether he, or others in the Cabinet Office, are thinking about how lessons can be learned from IBCA’s approach in this case that could be applied to other areas of Government and other compensation schemes, so that we do not lose the learnings from this for the next time—because, inevitably, sadly, things will go wrong with Government.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and there are certainly lessons to be learned. That point applies in this case and, sadly, to a number of the other historical scandals that the House has dealt with over recent years.
Lord Mandelson
Debate between Meg Hillier and Nick Thomas-Symonds(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I said to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), I will take the first point away. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on the importance of the amendment, which I will come back to in moment. There are really important public policy issues that I want to deal with in that respect.
Let me return to the thrust of my speech.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way in a moment.
Let us be clear: no Government Minister of any political party should have behaved in the way that Peter Mandelson did, and it was absolutely disgraceful. The alleged leaking of crucial documents to help millionaires to profit in the middle of the global crash and lying to contemporaries, the Prime Minister and the public are both shameful and shameless.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and then my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
Dame Meg Hillier
I am no longer the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
It seems that we are in something of a muddle here. Had the Opposition named the ISC in the Humble Address, as has happened in the past, there would have been no debate in this House. Putting all the information openly in the public domain could have risks, but there are well-worn filters through Parliament, such as through Committee corridor—various Committees could have locus in this space—to properly and sensitively handle information that, in my time, has never leaked from a Committee. Does the Minister agree? That would ensure that we on Committee corridor are holding the Government to account on behalf of Parliament. There is consensus that everybody wants as much information as possible in the public domain so that we can get to the bottom of what has happened in this egregious situation.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the existing mechanisms of scrutiny, and I give her great credit for her work. As I have said in response to Opposition Members, I will take that point away.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Debate between Meg Hillier and Nick Thomas-Symonds(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. On his first point, I agree; whether the documents and communications are from the Government or the IBCA, I am constantly pressing for plain English. To be fair to those tasked with producing those documents, some of the content is complicated, but trying to communicate in accessible ways is hugely important.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point regarding the tax exemption, he is correct, I think, in his interpretation that there is a single tax exemption. The compensation is received free of tax in the first instance, but there is no subsequent tax exemption. That is in line with general Government policy on tax exemptions across the board.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. On lessons learned, I hope he has looked at the National Audit Office’s work on different compensation schemes so that we can learn from that. I also hope that he supports the national campaign to encourage people who received a blood transfusion to get tested for hepatitis C, as two people a month are contacting the helpline to say that they were infected during the relevant period.
To press the Minister further on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), under this scheme people get compensation because they are dying due to infected blood; it is not random, coincidental or due to something else. If they happen to receive the compensation just before they die, their family will pay inheritance tax on it. The victims want to ensure that their families are properly supported, because they are no longer able to do that, so will the Minister renew his efforts to talk to the Treasury about this issue? This is a small, defined group of people, which does not need to set a more general precedent, but for this particular scheme—where the state failed people so much—the issue is an important one to resolve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does on this. I entirely agree with her about learning lessons from the different compensation schemes across several Governments in recent decades. On her second point, regarding tax exemptions, I have set out the Government’s position, but I hear very strongly what Members are saying.
Infected Blood Inquiry
Debate between Meg Hillier and Nick Thomas-Symonds(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I echo his tribute to his constituent Clive Smith for all his remarkable campaigning over many years. In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s second point on the probate process and ensuring that the money actually reaches those it is supposed to reach, the Government are considering how we can best support victims through the probate process. I hope to have further details on that in due course.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Huge congratulations to you on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) for her dogged work in getting everybody to this point.
I want to raise with the Minister the interesting report that has come out from the National Audit Office this week, which looks at compensation schemes across the piece and makes recommendations to the Cabinet Office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) said, there have been a number of compensation schemes, but they seem to be ad hoc, and lessons are not always learned about how to deliver them, so victims in the middle get squeezed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us that he will be considering that and coming out with recommendations in due course.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She is entirely right that we need to learn lessons from previous compensation schemes, where they have gone well, and, frankly, where they have gone not so well—where, after looking at and reflecting upon them, we see that the proportion of money that we wanted to go to victims did not quite make it. I certainly give the reassurance that we are looking at those previous schemes and trying to learn best practice from them.